Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Reviews

Cons

Might be boring at some point

Cons

Management has taken up micro-managing experienced IT project managers. Spend more time doing reports and trying to make mgmt look good than managing projects.

Cons

Poorly shared vision. Remarkably, executive management seems unable or unwilling to understand the day to day operation of keeping a large financial institution safe and stable. VPs and AVPs at times seem clueless and motivated by irrelevant non-sense and kingdom-building .

Cons

Racist! Slow to adapt to new leadership theories and technology

Cons

*Workplace Politics
*Hierarchical
*Food options could be better

Cons

consensus-driven decision making slows things down.

Cons

No leadership opportunities, little is spent for development and training.

Cons

things to expect and things to watch out for:
1. recruiting - speculative
that position you applied for may not actually exist yet, or ever. In my personal experience positions are being advertised and interviews conducted before they have budget approval. and yes, sometimes the position is cancelled between the interview and selection phases.

2. the interview - reasonable.
if your know your subject matter you should have no problem. most of the people i've encountered there are good to work with.

3. the selection process - do not be in a hurry, this can drag on for several months. if something else comes along while waiting you should probably take it.

4. the offer - prepare to be underwhelmed
FRIT has a fantastic benefits plan, the best i have ever seen. but the salary component of their compensation program is 20-25% below market. i've turned away 2-3 FRIT positions because the salary was so low. even if you do make it through the first three phases there is some probability you will walk away disappointed.

5. career development - get comfortable
the organization is mostly static. do not expect mobility, either upwards or sideways.

Cons

"Cultural Corruption" and "Hired on False Pretenses" said it best, incompetence is prevalent and widely accepted. Job descriptions are a joke and don't normally align with what you do. So if you are applying for a job, just know that there is a good chance you will not do anything close to what is written and if you do, that could change over night. If you are considering applying and think you are not qualified, apply anyway. The organization regularly hires and promotes people subjectively and actual qualifications have little if anything to do with decisions. There is a common theme in all reviews - lots of " people" problems. It is no wonder why this organization has so many of these problems because the HR department is not equipped to solve them. HR leaders at the highest levels do not have HR credentials. The Chief HR officer was recently profiled and while learning about her hobbies and interests was intriguing, what stood out was her non existent job related credentials. With all of the diversity and inclusion issues the organuzation has, the leaders of that area don't have credentials either. Like other areas, HR leadership quality ranges from incompetence to mediocrity. The organization needs dynamic, courageous and credentialed leaders in all areas to address the myriad of issues it has and to understand and use best practices to hire and retain top talent. Top talent should be encouraged and positioned to use and develop their skills throughout their careers. Too often talented people either leave, submit or hit a glass ceiling because those are the only available options.

Cons

Constant budgetary constraints due to pressures from Washington, DC.